Sideshows threaten Iran nuclear talks: Column

USA Today

A confluence of three momentous events in the past week could have enormous repercussions in the quest by the West for a nuclear-free Iran. Yet in each case, the various players seem to be speaking in dissonant voices, barely aware of any others on the field.

The first event was the latest round of talks between the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany that took place in Geneva last Tuesday and Wednesday. Though largely overshadowed by the budget and deficit meltdown in Washington that had captured the world's attention, the Geneva talks were the first such get-together since the promising gestures by Iran to the West at the UN General Assembly session in New York last month. They produced -- as expected -- no real breakthrough. Still, even Russia observed the next day that the importance of this round should "not be understated." Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich added, "In our view, although it was very tough, it was quite, quite promising," and that Iran's proposals at the session "could move the negotiating process forward, and are evidence of the Iranian side's intention to ... resolve the issues that are of concern to the six powers."

Just what was decided behind closed doors was not disclosed -- a good sign, along with the first issuance of a joint statement and a pledge to return for a second round on Nov. 7. Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi even prophesied an agreement in an optimistic three to six months.

But if that was the main stage of this multiyear theater of the absurd, there were a couple of sideshows where the players seemed to be doing their best to torpedo any chance of an agreement.

The next up was a tit-for-tat wrangle over U.S. sanctions against Iran that have already resulted in a near-catastrophic meltdown in the local economy and played a substantial role in bringing to power a regime that is motivated to negotiate an acceptable agreement to restrain its nuclear program.

But a New York Times report suggested that some Obama administration officials are considering unfreezing at least some Iranian assets overseas as a carrot to the nation's Geneva negotiators. That bit of news promptly led a group of Republican senators to push for a tightening of such sanctions. "Now is a time to strengthen -- not weaken -- U.S. and international sanctions," the senators said. "The U.S. should not suspend new sanctions, nor consider releasing limited frozen assets, before Tehran suspends its nuclear enrichment activities."

Perhaps the most critical move, in the medium-term, and perhaps the least widely noted, was the sudden and utterly bewildering rejection by Saudi Arabia of a two-year seat on the UN Security Council. At the very moment the Saudi ambassador to the United Nations was celebrating the selection of his country, for the first time, as one of five nations elected to fill the rotating seats on this select body, the foreign ministry in Riyadh was issuing a statement rejecting the invitation.

"Somebody in Riyadh seems to have studied at the Ted Cruz School of Ineffective Petulance," Thomas W. Lippmann of the Middle East Institute, one of America's leading Saudi specialists wrote to members of Columbia scholar Gary Sick's G2K network. "What bothers me almost as much as the ridiculous decision itself is the amateurish baloney of the foreign ministry statement announcing it."

There was a whole catalog of reasons, but most debate seemed to revolve around whether it was simple petulance for failures of the world body to deal with Middle East issues that have long been important to the Saudis, at least behind the scenes.

Other scholars, and this writer, suspect that the real reason may be more likely attributed to the traditional tiptoe-through-the-tulips school of Saudi diplomacy, which has proved through the years, reluctant to take any out-front, public displays of its feelings or intentions. Full membership of the Security Council could force it to vote publicly whether to support a UN position on:

The longstanding Israeli-Palestinian imbroglio that has now gone to full-scale U.S.-brokered talks. (The Saudis have long quietly backed the Palestinians);
On the Syrian civil war. (Saudi Arabia backs the rebels against the Iranian-backed Assad regime.)
Or Iran's nuclear ambitions. (The Saudis being firmly against any move toward a nuclear capability by Tehran, whose regime it has utterly opposed from the moment it overthrew the Shah 34 years ago.)

"Day-in-day-out engagement on the UN (Security Council) would expose the Saudis to making choices and casting votes on highly controversial matters," says Richard Lebaron, visiting senior fellow of the Rafik Harin Center for the Middle East. "Behind the posturing contained in the Saudi statement could lie a fear of being forced to differ publicly with major powers on a variety of questions, without much proved result."

Still, at some point, perhaps not too far in the future, there might be an accord reached in Geneva that requires ratification by the Security Council. At that point, a rational, and powerful Arab voice in those deliberations could prove most valuable. Indeed, even UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon still seemed this weekend to hold out some hope. As of late Friday, he observed, he'd not yet received formal notification that the Saudis were bowing out. There were, he added, behind the scenes talks going on vigorously, though he declined to say whether he might be appealing personally to the Saudi ruler, King Abdullah, himself.

The whole sequence smacks of a campfire being built with two sticks being rubbed together, which as soon as a whiff of smoke and a glint of flame appear, is doused by a sudden and violent rainstorm.

Hopefully the rain clouds can be held at bay long enough for the fire to catch.